Nehalem-EP......BLOOMFIELD

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

07-09-2008, 11:10 PM
tiro_uspsss

could u do us all a favour MM? - could u delete his posts as well, please? its not like they contribute.. thank you sir!
07-09-2008, 11:12 PM
Movieman

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

could u do us all a favour MM? - could u delete his posts as well, please? its not like they contribute.. thank you sir!

No, and I'll tell you why. It needs to be seen why he was banned.
07-09-2008, 11:14 PM
tiro_uspsss

Quote:

Originally Posted by Movieman

No, and I'll tell you why. It needs to be seen why he was banned.

oh ok, cool! - thats understandable :up:
07-10-2008, 12:18 AM
MomijiTMO

Quote:

Originally Posted by Movieman

I will say publicly how I view the threads here.
If I see an issue I try and calm it down.
Gently but firmly and usually, but not always without naming individuals.
If that doesn't work and someone challenges me then yes, I will say it straight to the individual.
If that doesn't work and the guy comes back at me as this one did then yes, I will take action.
This is the first member I believe that I have permabanned and only the third ban to any member(barring the spammers) that I have given out.
It is not something I enjoy at all but without some sort of order you have caos.
I try to view all the members as friends that I have not met yet and treat them in that way but I am human, there are buttons that can be pushed that will bring out my temper but rarely and someone has to be really looking for trouble and push hard before I react.
That ass-licking comment and the last one about Shintai and Dr. Who "servicing me" said that this guy wasn't going to back down and wanted a ban,The martyr syndrome".. He asked for it and he got what he wanted.

Hey I hope you didn't take my post in a way I didn't intend it to be read.

I was saying that I think this new member isn't really a new member and was an existing [or banned member] that decided to create another account to flame. The comment about "getting tired of you saying putting on a mod's hat" is unfounded as I have been here longer than them [well according to their join date] and I have only see you ban [temp or permanent] a member twice. The way they phrased it suggests you ban people on a daily basis.

They were rude to DrWho? and to yourself. Butt licking suggestions followed up with 'service you' statements aren't pleasant, especially when you don't deserve it.

I'm a simple person so I hope you understand what I'm saying :(
07-10-2008, 01:12 AM
gOJDO

Quote:

Originally Posted by Movieman

The martyr syndrome".. He asked for it and he got what he wanted.

Oh, I want a Nehalem rig!!! When I'll get what I want? :)

Until then, JC where are you? We need some more benches mate. We also need OC results!
07-10-2008, 01:38 AM
MomijiTMO

I think OC results won't be provided ;)
07-10-2008, 03:01 AM
Jupiler

Quote:

Originally Posted by MomijiTMO

Hey I hope you didn't take my post in a way I didn't intend it to be read.

I was saying that I think this new member isn't really a new member and was an existing [or banned member] that decided to create another account to flame. The comment about "getting tired of you saying putting on a mod's hat" is unfounded as I have been here longer than them [well according to their join date] and I have only see you ban [temp or permanent] a member twice. The way they phrased it suggests you ban people on a daily basis.

They were rude to DrWho? and to yourself. Butt licking suggestions followed up with 'service you' statements aren't pleasant, especially when you don't deserve it.

I'm a simple person so I hope you understand what I'm saying :(

To clear it up a little :

- The guys insults another member (Dr.Who in this case), which would have been sufficient to give him a warning. That post gets removed.
- He then comes back and goes after Dave (even after I stepped in and asked to keep it nice and clean).

Most guys here at XS know Dave as a very nice and kind person, and that if problems arise, he will always try to solve them in a mature, professional way.

Sometimes people think that we are mods with one hand on the keyboard and the other hand on the mouse, pointed at the BAN button and ready to click it.
Well, I can assure that this is absolutely not the case.
Other than spammers, we don't like to ban people from this forum. But if no other option is left, then so be it.

Now, Dave banned him and maybe some think that he abused his powers as a mod because that guy got personal towards him.
Well, he didn't and if Dave didn't ban him, I would have done it (or another staff member).
He gets my full 200% support in this.

I hope this clears things a little and that we can get back on topic.
07-10-2008, 03:10 AM
Seraphiel

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

Hmm exactly,something is off with this bench..Either HT isn't working correctly or it is working stellarly and is producing 2x the scores :confused::confused: ..Which in turn is highly unlikely (how can a HT enabled Nehalem chip score 2x the physical scores with HT enabled??).We need actuall points per day the Nehalem puts out,not the built-in tool to benchmark it.The actual ppd will tell us is the HT really this good or is it messing with the scores.

Dave or anyone else. Any speculation as to this problem?

Quote:

Originally Posted by savantu

On a similar note , I'd expect the Nehalem IMC to be more sensitive to memory and especially voltage.Because it is incorporated into the CPU , it is made with 45nm.That causes problems when linked to higher voltages needed for RAM links ( 1.5V ).Being in the chipset alleviated this problem since chipsets are usually on n-1 or n-2 process tech which matches better the voltages used in RAM.

Could you / someone please explain this a little better? I thought RAM voltage only affected the RAM itself, and not the memory controller :confused:

I know, I have alot to learn.
07-10-2008, 09:50 AM
BulldogPO

Has someone tested Sandra and Everest Memory Bandwidth tests yet with these ES Nehalems?
07-10-2008, 09:57 AM
Movieman

Quote:

Originally Posted by MomijiTMO

Hey I hope you didn't take my post in a way I didn't intend it to be read.

I was saying that I think this new member isn't really a new member and was an existing [or banned member] that decided to create another account to flame. The comment about "getting tired of you saying putting on a mod's hat" is unfounded as I have been here longer than them [well according to their join date] and I have only see you ban [temp or permanent] a member twice. The way they phrased it suggests you ban people on a daily basis.

They were rude to DrWho? and to yourself. Butt licking suggestions followed up with 'service you' statements aren't pleasant, especially when you don't deserve it.

I'm a simple person so I hope you understand what I'm saying :(

I understand. No issue with you at all on this.;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by gOJDO

Oh, I want a Nehalem rig!!! When I'll get what I want? :)

Until then, JC where are you? We need some more benches mate. We also need OC results!

Me too..:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seraphiel

Dave or anyone else. Any speculation as to this problem?

The only thing I can think of is that JC from what I saw was using one stick of 1 gig memory.
That's pretty minimal, I use 2x1 gig on the Q6600.
Even though the amount of memory would be sufficient to run 4 instances of WCG and that we;ve seen there isn't a lot of increase by using faster memory, I think that the issue is in there or in the usage of that memory in a beta board.
That's just a gut feeling and nothing scientific to back it up.
07-10-2008, 11:04 AM
NeedMoMegaHurtZ

Some more published benchies of Nehalem @ 2.93 over at Tom's
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/int...core,5854.html

3DMark 06 1280x1024 noAA Score
3DMarks 12786
SM2.0 score 4605
HDR/SM3.0 score 5600
CPU score 5183

PCMark 05 Score
PCMark 9852
CPU score 9583
Memory 9010

3DMark Vantage Score
CPU score 17966
CPU Test1 (Plans/S) 2515.1
CPU Test2 (Steps/S) 23.08

PCMark 05 Score
Nehalem 2.93 GHz 9852
Core 2 Extreme QX6800 2.93 GHz 8925
QuadFX Athlon FX-74 3 GHz 7501
AMD Phenom 9850 BE 2.5 GHz 7400
07-10-2008, 11:06 AM
Donnie27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Movieman

No, and I'll tell you why. It needs to be seen why he was banned.

Absolutely quoted for truth! Thank you Movieman, only cowards and folks who have stuff to hide delete out posts. They normally erase evidence when they more times than not unjustly ban folks for personal reasons.
07-10-2008, 11:09 AM
Donnie27

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedMoMegaHurtZ

Some more published benchies of Nehalem @ 2.93 over at Tom's
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/int...core,5854.html

3DMark 06 1280x1024 noAA Score
3DMarks 12786
SM2.0 score 4605
HDR/SM3.0 score 5600
CPU score 5183

PCMark 05 Score
PCMark 9852
CPU score 9583
Memory 9010

3DMark Vantage Score
CPU score 17966
CPU Test1 (Plans/S) 2515.1
CPU Test2 (Steps/S) 23.08

PCMark 05 Score
Nehalem 2.93 GHz 9852
Core 2 Extreme QX6800 2.93 GHz 8925
QuadFX Athlon FX-74 3 GHz 7501
AMD Phenom 9850 BE 2.5 GHz 7400

Now if they'd only run some real software:rolleyes:
07-10-2008, 11:16 AM
Movieman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Absolutely quoted for truth! Thank you Movieman, only cowards and folks who have stuff to hide delete out posts. They normally erase evidence when they more times than not unjustly ban folks for personal reasons.

I did remove two posts that were rude IMO to others but the one to myself I can live with.
At 56 your usually comfortable with who you are.;)
07-10-2008, 11:46 AM
Jacky

So it's about 2% faster in Pcmark05 and 7% in 3dMark 06? Isn't the 3d Mark 06 CPU test multithreaded, why only such a low speed up?
3dMark 06
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/&menu=...&show=original
PcMark05
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/h...reme_qx9650/9/

Edit:
didn't see they compared it to a QX6800. The Taiwenese tom's hardware had already released the numbers before but w/o any comparison. Anyway, a clock-normalised Penryn would have been much better than a QX6800 to be fair.
07-10-2008, 11:54 AM
Donnie27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Movieman

I did remove two posts that were rude IMO to others but the one to myself I can live with.
At 56 your usually comfortable with who you are.;)

Amen but the ones you left are evidence enough.
07-10-2008, 01:38 PM
KeZzZu

Hello!

Just saw those bench results.... makes me cry :/
well few questions
1: Dunno what os you're using on those systems, but how smooth it is? i mean my x2 beats my E6400 in smoothness, but how's nehalem doing?

2: Oc ? same kind of like c2d & c2q ?

3: price? i really don't have clue with this one.

4: Well this ain't question, but this product will eventually lead amd to serious problems, which makes me again cry.
Performance is just outstanding when watching those results
07-10-2008, 06:59 PM
xlimit

Guys, is there any info that nehalem will use 4 cores 8 threads or 8 cores 16 threads, or it will implemented in 32nm process Westmere .

Thanks
07-10-2008, 07:46 PM
Orthogonal

Quote:

Originally Posted by xlimit

Guys, is there any info that nehalem will use 4 cores 8 threads or 8 cores 16 threads, or it will implemented in 32nm process Westmere.

Thanks

Both, although the 8 core version will be beyond the reach of mere mortals. Nehalem-EX (aka Beckton) is the MP server chip and will be exclusively for the high end server/HPC market.

Westmere will be native 6 core 12 thread, although it will be modular enough to have other combinations as well for other segments.
07-11-2008, 06:54 AM
GoThr3k

Quote:

Originally Posted by MomijiTMO

All I can say is that this new member who joined in June wouldn't be tired of you saying "puts on a mod hat" unless they had really been here before and say. . . were banned. ;).

thanks for wrongly accusing me
07-11-2008, 06:56 AM
Movieman

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

thanks for wrongly accusing me

correct, your IP and the other guys were different and from different countries. I did check that.
07-11-2008, 07:03 AM
tiro_uspsss

this is probably a reeeaaal old question - is the bracket/retention system for this socket the same dimensions as 775? (u know, where the push-pins go in etc) :)
07-11-2008, 07:10 AM
GoThr3k

Quote:

Originally Posted by Movieman

correct, your IP and the other guys were different and from different countries. I did check that.

Altough i am gratefull you corrected my ban status, i still need to clarify something up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Movieman

I'm going to reply to you even though I don't think your worth my time.
You in prior posts made reference that the cpu wouldn't or hadn't been shown to do 3000mhz, I responded that I'd seen screenshots to the contrary.
Then you moved your point to 3200mhz and when shown by Metroid and then by myself that the chip will do 3200 you change to MORE than 3200.
Finally after this back and forth ad nauseum I tell you to stay out of the thread as it's becoming obvious to me that all your doing is looking for an arguement, IE: Trolling the thread what do you do?
You have to come back and open your big mouth, and to try and hurt me you toss in the comment about the machines not being fast enough to cure cancer.
With that one statement you have shown to all the child that resides in that 20 year old body.
Now you can take 7 days to think this over and I warn you, come back in a week and start this crap over and I'll ban your ass till the second coming of Christ!
Yes, you pushed the wrong damned buttons my friend.
I have a long fuse before I get pissed but you burned through all of it.
Let it go.

As you will read in the next quotes i was talking about 3Ghz Phenoms, and 3.2+ Ghz Nehalems. But first the cancer thing. The thing about your machines not curing cancer fast enough, was intended as a sarcastic joke, but i guess it wasnt your sense of humor. To the people who think I don't know the horrors of cancer, well, I do. Luckily enough it's not my personal experience, but I may state i have experience with cancer far beyond almost anyone fbeing a member of this forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

everyone also saw phenom at 3ghz+ before release, no guarantee for overclock

I clearly state, phenom at 3ghz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

There is 2.66 and 2.93Ghz ES samples out. Plus Intel easily shows off 3.2Ghz and alot higher.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

where?

I ask for proof of 3.2+ Ghz nehalem

Quote:

Originally Posted by Movieman

You don't see any relevance because it suits your position to ignore the relevance.
The relevance is that your saying "show me" clocks over 3000mhz on Nehalem.
My point is and was that if I could clock the clovers way beyond what was seen at the start of release on them then certainly others with greater skills than myself are clocking Nehalem to over 3000mhz and screen shots I've seen bear out my point.
Nehalem has been run to over 3000mhz even if you haven't seen it yourself.

I dont know why, but i always stated i wanted to see proof op nehalems above 3.2ghz, i still dont know where you see the 3Ghz number except in combination with the phenom. But this all doesnt matter anymore, just wanted to clarify things up.
07-11-2008, 07:22 AM
Donnie27

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

Altough i am gratefull you corrected my ban status, i still need to clarify something up.

As you will read in the next quotes i was talking about 3Ghz Phenoms, and 3.2+ Ghz Nehalems. But first the cancer thing. The thing about your machines not curing cancer fast enough, was intended as a sarcastic joke, but i guess it wasnt your sense of humor. To the people who think I don't know the horrors of cancer, well, I do. Luckily enough it's not my personal experience, but I may state i have experience with cancer far beyond almost anyone fbeing a member of this forum.

I clearly state, phenom at 3ghz

I ask for proof of 3.2+ Ghz nehalem

I dont know why, but i always stated i wanted to see proof op nehalems above 3.2ghz, i still dont know where you see the 3Ghz number except in combination with the phenom. But this all doesnt matter anymore, just wanted to clarify things up.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/04...o_clock_speed/

http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/02/i...essors-at-idf/

http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/i...3-2ghz-penryn/

Quote:

Intel's Nehalem benchmarked: 2.66GHz faster than 3.2GHz Penryn
07-11-2008, 07:23 AM
tiro_uspsss

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie27

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/04...o_clock_speed/

http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/02/i...essors-at-idf/

http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/05/i...3-2ghz-penryn/

tsk tsk tsk

dont feed the troll! :shakes: :down:

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page